One nitpick: the 1995 ALDS win over the Yankees was widely seen as saving MLB in Seattle. And, as crushing as it was to this Yankees fan, it was truly a terrific, dramatic series.

Was it Lou's fault?

Edgar Martinez, who in those five years hit an inhuman .334/.455/.579.

Whoa.

Russ Davis, who did hit 20-plus homers three years in a row as a third baseman.

Bit of a stretch to call Russ Davis a good player, no?

True, Piniella was still insistently using Norm Charlton in 71 games despite his 7.27 ERA.

Holy ####.

Mike Mussina beat Unit twice

No one will mention this when Mussina is up for the Hall.

Sweet blog post, I love this guy.

One nitpick: the 1995 ALDS win over the Yankees was widely seen as saving MLB in Seattle. And, as crushing as it was to this Yankees fan, it was truly a terrific, dramatic series.

A book should be written about that series. It changed the respective courses of two franchises, and pretty much baseball history. The Yankees win that Series, and Showalter stays, along with guys like Stanley and Velarde, it's a totally different team in '96... and baseball was obviously saved in Seattle, as a direct result of Jack McDowell being unable to record an out in the eleventh…

While these Mariners could be seen as an underachieving bunch, they could also be viewed as exhibit A regarding the importance of relief pitching in modern baseball.

No, in those five years — when the Mariners had three all-time greats and lots of near-greats — the Mariners never won more than 90 games. How is that even possible?

Ummm...because (besides RJ and Moyer) their pitching stunk to high heaven?

Confcius say, "He who keeps giveing the ball to guys like Ken Cloude, Bobby Ayala and Bob Woolcott is gonna get his punk ### beat, no matter how many runs his team scores."

Wow, the (the fast) Brian Hunter was really terrible for that '99 team.

None of those teams had 4 reasonable starters. They all have 2 or 3 who are good and then a bunch of guys with ERAs around 5.50 or 6. The 1997 team is the most dramatic, with Fassero/Moyer/Johnson at 3.61/3.86/2.28, then it's a couple of guys over 5.00 and 36 starts to pitchers over 6.00. That's just terrible.

The first essay is built around Bill’s question: What team underachieved the most?

Introducing: The 1995-1999 Seattle Mariners.

Yes, but the 2001 Mariners are the greatest team of all time! They won 116 games and then swept through the rotisserie league postseason! Don't forget them!

If you have a Hall of Fame player at every position, but all of your pitchers give up 15 runs a game, you're not going to win that many games.

IOW, it doesn't matter if you have four great players on your team, if you have too many suspect ones, you won't get to play the '27 Yankees. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Isn't that the point though?

Basically, the point of the post is "which team had the most superstars but still managed to suck." Mariners seem like a good choice. Of course, the reason they still managed to suck was suspect players at other positions....what else could the reason be?

Those Mariners have always seemed to me to offer a parallel story to the Milwaukee Braves. You can even conect some of the players:

Griffey - Aaron
Rodriguez - Mathews
Johnson - Spahn
Martinez - Adcock

and so on. The Braves did win two pennants and one World Series, and finished second in the league a whole bunch of times, so they had more success than the Mariners. But there's definitely a sense that they could have been a major dynasty.

Basically, the point of the post is "which team had the most superstars but still managed to suck." Mariners seem like a good choice. Of course, the reason they still managed to suck was suspect players at other positions....what else could the reason be?

Because the superstars weren't clutch.

Yeah, I know it's silly, but I hear it often enough still.

One more thing. I love Posnanski, but I think this is actually the first half of a larger piece. You could say that the M's underachieved, but that doesn't tell us much. I'd rather ask WHY they didn't win more. I'd rather ask what it takes to actually win a pennant/World Series.

I don't have a good answer off the top of my head except to guess that you need enough depth beyond four or five great players. I mean, we saw a similar problem with the 1960s Giants, right? They had Mays, McCovey (or Cepeda), and Marichal, and in the late 1960s they also had Gaylord Perry. But, but except for a few good years of Jim Ray Hart, they had little else. Not enough.

Look at the Mariners squads that Pos mentions. None of them had the balance between hitting and pitching that you need to succeed -- especially in the multi-tiered playoff system. And none of them had the requisite depth. Sure in 1995 Johnson had a great season, but he was the only starter to have an ERA below 4.42, and Griffey (as noted) was hurt most of the year. In 1996, they had a decent pen but no starters; in 1997, they had good starters in Unit, Moyer and Fassero, but no pen. For most of these years, their second-tier hitters were a HUGE dropoff from the likes of Griffey, Edgar, A-Rod and even Buhner: Russ Davis mostly was mediocre, while Dan Wilson and Joey Cora sucked. In 1999, the Unit left, and the pitching staff dropped to 13th out of 14 teams in ERA, while the Dan Wilsons and Brian Hunters brought the offense down to average.

Contrast this with, say the Red Sox of 2004 and 2007. They had a legitimate ace each year (Schilling in 2004, Beckett in 2007), but they also had secondary starters who were above average (Pedro and Arroyo in 2004, Schilling and Matsuzaka in 2007). In both years they had superior bullpens (the 2007 pen in particular was great) with several standout relievers beyond just the closer. In both years they had that offensive core of Manny and Papi, but they were also supported by other hitters having good years (Damon, Varitek, Millar in 2004; Lowell, Youkilis, Pedroia in 2007). They didn't just rely on one great pitcher and three great hitters.

The moral of the story? I'm not sure there is one, except to say that four or five great players are a <u>foundation</u> for a team, but you need more than that to truly thrive. I think the presence of Griffey, A-Rod and Johnson actually masked the fact that the M's were a thin team.

IOW, it doesn't matter if you have four great players on your team, if you have too many suspect ones, you won't get to play the '27 Yankees. Seems pretty obvious to me.

The question is why did Gillick have so much trouble finding average or even slightly below average guys to fill in those holes?

the Mariners never won more than 90 games. How is that even possible?

Better yet, how is that even legal?

The moral of the story? I'm not sure there is one, except to say that four or five great players are a foundation for a team, but you need more than that to truly thrive. I think the presence of Griffey, A-Rod and Johnson actually masked the fact that the M's were a thin team.

I think the moral of the story is that average players and useful role players are incredibly valuable, and the best GMs are the ones who are able to build a complete roster by finding enough of those guys.

Basically, the point of the post is "which team had the most superstars but still managed to suck." Mariners seem like a good choice.

Word, it's not like Joe can't look at the BBref page like the rest of us and say hey, they're pitching sucked. It's just unusual to have a team stacked with HOFers and terrible backend talent.

Sweet blog post, I love this guy.

No kidding. This was a fun post.

I think the easiest solution to the whole BBWAA issue is just to take away EVERYONE's ballots and let Poz rule the land HOF inductions and post-season awards as a benevolent dictator.

When Mark Cuban fails to buy the Cubs, perhaps he'd consider buying the Sun-Times or something, kicking Crapiotti to the curb, and luring Joe to Chicago.

#13: The question is why did Gillick have so much trouble finding average or even slightly below average guys to fill in those holes?

Since Gillick didn't become GM until 1999, I don't think he spent a lot of time trying to fill those holes all of those years.

The Mariners had all of those holes because Woody Woodward was the GM trying to fill them for most of that period.

I think the moral of the story is that average players and useful role players are incredibly valuable, and the best GMs are the ones who are able to build a complete roster by finding enough of those guys.

Excellent point, Yeaarrgghhhh.

Excellent point, Yeaarrgghhhh.

This post reads a lot like "Ladies and gentlemen, the murderer is none other than... gaaaagghhhh!!"

lol

The Houston Astros in the decade from roughly 1995-2005 have to figure prominently in this discussion. That 1998 team (with Randy Johnson) might have been the best NL squad of the 90's...

Excellent blog post by Posnanski. I'm really looking forward to his other Abstract-inspired offerings.

Post number eight raises an interesting question, at least in my mind:

"It doesn't matter if you have four great players on your team, if you have too many suspect ones, you won't get to play the '27 Yankees."

Perhaps it would be an oversimplification to refer to the Seattle Mariner teams under discussion as four no-doubt Hall-of-Famers surrounded by below average teammates; but what if we created a team that truly matched that description; how would it fare? That is, suppose we begin by taking a truly awful team; say, the 1962 Mets, and added Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio and Lefty Grove to the roster: how much would their record improve from 40-120? Would they break sixty wins? Would they reach .500? What if you added another Hall of Fame postition player; how much better would they be then? How about another HOF starting pitcher? Would adding six no-doubt Hall of Fame players at their peak to the roster be enough to turn the 1962 New York Mets into a pennant winner? Or would six no-doubt HOFers only be enough to make the team mediocre?

Bill James once remarked of the 1980 Phillies that they were what you'd get if you took the 1980 Blue Jays and added Willie Mays, Sandy Koufax, and Hoyt Wilhelm. I don't guess he was bitter about the World Series or anything :)

#24: Wow, that's true. I had forgotten how good Carlton, Schmidt and McGraw were that year.

...what if we created a team that truly matched that description; how would it fare? That is, suppose we begin by taking a truly awful team; say, the 1962 Mets, and added Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio and Lefty Grove to the roster: how much would their record improve from 40-120?

It's not an exact parallel, and it's laid out in reverse. But the 1898 Cleveland Spiders included Hall of Famers Cy Young, Jesse Burkett, and Bobby Wallace, plus Cupid Childs. They were a fifth place team that finished 9 games over .500. The next year, the roster was gutted and Cleveland was 114 games under .500.

So, if basic math tells us that the absence of Young-Burkett-Wallace caused a 123-game swing, I'd conservatively estimate that Ruth-Gehrig-Grove would be worth 190 games in the standings.

You can have a heartbreaker team that never quite wins like the Cleveland Indians or 1990s Buffalo Bills.

So the Indians are now the official bridesmaids of MLB now that the Red Sox have won?

So the Indians are now the official bridesmaids of MLB now that the Red Sox have won?

You're forgetting about the Cubbies, no?

So the Indians are now the official bridesmaids of MLB now that the Red Sox have won?


You're forgetting about the Cubbies, no?

There are always women crazy, ugly or annoying enough that you KNOW they'll always be single.

Since Gillick didn't become GM until 1999, I don't think he spent a lot of time trying to fill those holes all of those years.

Whoops...I stand corrected.

That is, suppose we begin by taking a truly awful team; say, the 1962 Mets, and added Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio and Lefty Grove to the roster: how much would their record improve from 40-120? Would they break sixty wins? Would they reach .500?

I dug out my OOTP2007 and did exactly this. Two words: World Champs.

I plucked these four from the height of their careers (Ruth in 1920, Gehrig in '27, DiMaggio in '39 and Grove in '31) and put them on the '62 Mets. They went 98-64 (beating back the Dodgers and Pirates in a classic pennant race) then beat the Yankees, 4 games to 1 (fittingly, they lost the opener then won four straight) in the WS. Gehrig, Ruth and DiMag were 1-2-4 in batter VORP (Tom Haller was third) and Grove easily won the Cy Young. Yikes.

I don't think it's a huge coincidence that the Mariners top three players were three guys who never really wanted to take a leadership role. Randy Johnson has the people skills of a badger, Junior is big on smiling and being regarded as "one of the guys", and A-rod is doing a Stuart Smiley pep talk in the mirror each day before he goes to the ballpark.

It has been stated by others in different places at different times in different ways but at the end of the day your best player has to be some kind of leader. Be it lead through example or lead by force of personality it is the price of being the best.

Look, I am not writing that this was THE reason the M's may not have won as much as others expected. In fact the pitching issue certainly is a starting point. But I think this item is worth considering.

I don't think it's a huge coincidence that the Mariners top three players were three guys who never really wanted to take a leadership role. Randy Johnson has the people skills of a badger, Junior is big on smiling and being regarded as "one of the guys", and A-rod is doing a Stuart Smiley pep talk in the mirror each day before he goes to the ballpark.

What exactly is "leadership" on a ballclub, anyway? I suspect it's the difference between putting up good numbers on a winning team vs. doing the same thing on a losing club...

at the end of the day your best player has to be some kind of leader. Be it lead through example or lead by force of personality it is the price of being the best

Two of the teams I have followed most closely over the years would tend to confirm your idea, Harv (though there certainly may be counter-examples as well). The 1980 Phillies again: they had been underachieving since the mid-70s. Schmidt and Carlton were aloof, and the team needed Pete Rose if they were going to win a pennant. Rose was no longer a great player, but he had been, and he led by example and by running his mouth 24/7.

The early-90s Texas Rangers had any number of superior talents, but none of them were leader types. Pudge Rodriguez was very young, Kevin Brown and Kenny Rogers were jerks, Rafael Palmeiro a pleasant guy but not in anyone's face, Nolan Ryan was an institution but he was mainly about Nolan Ryan, Juan Gonzalez and Ruben Sierra were shy and troubled, and when Jose Canseco arrived he was a buffoon. That team needed Will Clark if it was ever going to win a division title. Again, Clark was no longer great, but he had the credibility to be listened to on the field and in the clubhouse.

The only thing wrong with veteran presences who know how to win is that some GMs figure that's all they need. It isn't. You must build around great talent. But if you already have Pujols, Rolen, Carpenter, and Edmonds and you haven't won a World Series, then adding David Eckstein may be a pretty good move.

Hopefully, this discussion is still going on. According to Phil Birnbaum, the Mariners were very unlucky during the late 90s (see spreadsheet.) Their big problems? The lineup didn't score as many runs as would've been expected from their batter's stats. If you go by his study, though, the killer was that the pitchers underperformed their expectations.

RMc:

What exactly is "leadership" on a ballclub, anyway?

Leadership is inspiring those around you to excel. As the best player you are always the reference point for a player who has questions about what he needs to do generate the best possible outcome. It's that way in Little League, it's that way in Pony League, it's that way in Legion ball and it sure as h*ll applies on a major league ballclub.

Can you win with great players as a centerpiece who aren't interested in assuming that role? Yes. But it takes a lot of other things to go right and it sure isn't going to be sustained over time.

And before folks start trotting out a Mickey Mantle as a counter to my statement, which is NOT an original idea, know that Mantle inspired his teammates by his willingness to play through obvious pain and injury. Granted, some of it was self-inflicted. But at the end of the day those around him held Mickey in high esteem.

Does anyone on the Yanks revere Alex? Did anyone on any Randy Johnson team think highly of HIM as opposed to his talent? Does anyone on the M's or now the Reds gush about the example Junior sets in approaching the game? Um, no, no and no. Cripes, Adam Dunn, once known for his avowed love of slackerdom, gets more pub in Cincy for his devotion to his craft.

Best players will have to lead. It's part of the job.

What exactly is "leadership" on a ballclub, anyway? I suspect it's the difference between putting up good numbers on a winning team vs. doing the same thing on a losing club...

Then you never played on a team with a good captain. I never had a great captain in baseball, but I definately did on my high school football team. With that guy around, and he was not the most talented player on the team, but he was one of the most productive, everyone tried little bit harder in the weight room, ran a little bit faster during the Indian runs and paid more attention in the film room. A good captain makes you want to improve yourself and your game for your team, not just because your coach is screaming at you or you feel obligated to do it. And that genuinely makes a difference in performance, and I don't really care if it can be quantified or not.

And there is no question that professional ballplayers in all sports have different motivations and a lot of them do not seem to be all that focused on what's good for the team. That kind of leadership is important, probably moreso, at the professional level.

More Birnbaum stuff. "Top" ten disappointing seasons on these Mariner squadrons:

These guys didn't get the results you might have expected from that many HoFers.

Sure the Mariners had putrid pitching. But at least they had Johnson and Moyer for some of that time. Look at the teams that beat them in the 90s. The Rangers? The Indians? Those teams didn't exactly have great pitching staffs either.

ACE:

Well, most of the HOFers really weren't. And guys like Frisch and Hornsby were 34 and 37 respectively.

Sure the Mariners had putrid pitching. But at least they had Johnson and Moyer for some of that time. Look at the teams that beat them in the 90s. The Rangers? The Indians? Those teams didn't exactly have great pitching staffs either.

The Rangers and Indians certainly had better staffs than the Mariners did.

Leadership is inspiring those around you to excel. As the best player you are always the reference point for a player who has questions about what he needs to do generate the best possible outcome. It's that way in Little League, it's that way in Pony League, it's that way in Legion ball and it sure as h*ll applies on a major league ballclub.

I have no doubt that leadership is very important. With the Mariners, however, I wonder if we really need that as an explanation when lousy pitching (esp. in the bullpen) and roster construction is so much simpler.

I have no doubt that leadership is very important. With the Mariners, however, I wonder if we really need that as an explanation when lousy pitching (esp. in the bullpen) and roster construction is so much simpler.

Depends upon if you like or dislike the great players on the team to begin with.

With the Mariners, however, I wonder if we really need that as an explanation when lousy pitching (esp. in the bullpen) and roster construction is so much simpler.

I agree with this and despite my post on team leadership, I do not think the Mariner's failures were due to a lack of team leadership.

Does anyone on the Yanks revere Alex? Did anyone on any Randy Johnson team think highly of HIM as opposed to his talent? Does anyone on the M's or now the Reds gush about the example Junior sets in approaching the game? Um, no, no and no.

But did his teammates gush endlessly about their respect for Edgar Martinez? Most certainly.

I would say a lack of leadership probably cost the Indians a pennant in '40, FWIW.

What about the late 1960s Cubs?

Santo, Banks, Williams, Jenkins.....never even won a pennant. Even with a HOF manager.

the late 1960s Cubs?

Banks, of course, by the late 60s, was no longer a great player, just sort of über-decent. It is a disappointment that they never won a pennant with Santo, Williams, and Jenkins in their primes, but it's probably not that unusual a pattern. The late-1930s/early-1940s Red Sox (Foxx, Cronin, Grove, and then adding Doerr and Ted Williams) were similar, actually a bit stronger in their front-line talent.

The 2008 Astros may be the closest we'll ever get to this thought experiment in real life.
Berkman, Lee, Tejada, Pence, Oswalt and... uhhhhhh?
Those obviously aren't inner-circle Hall of Famers, but the gap in talent between those few stars and everything else is pretty amazing.

More Birnbaumm stuff. "Top" ten disappointing players from that Mariner era:



9 pitchers and 1 hitter.
Here's the flip side: